* Click here for the ruling. AP…

The Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortions, for now, in a procedural ruling that left key questions unanswered and could mean the issue ends up before the conservative-majority court again soon. […]

The opinion means the Idaho case will continue to play out in lower courts, and could end up before the Supreme Court again. It doesn’t answer key questions about whether doctors can provide emergency abortions elsewhere, a pressing issue as most Republican-controlled states have moved to restrict the procedure in the two years since the high court overturned Roe v. Wade.

* The AP in April…

One woman miscarried in the lobby restroom of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to check her in. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died.

Complaints that pregnant women were turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, federal documents obtained by The Associated Press reveal.

The cases raise alarms about the state of emergency pregnancy care in the U.S., especially in states that enacted strict abortion laws and sparked confusion around the treatment doctors can provide.

“It is shocking, it’s absolutely shocking,” said Amelia Huntsberger, an OB/GYN in Oregon. “It is appalling that someone would show up to an emergency room and not receive care — this is inconceivable.”

* From Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent…

In any event, the representations Idaho’s counsel made during oral argument and in the State’s briefs filed in this Court are not a definitive interpretation of Idaho law. That authority remains with the Idaho Supreme Court, which has never endorsed the State’s position. To the contrary, the Idaho Supreme Court has emphasized that, to avoid criminal liability, a doctor must subjectively believe that an abortion is necessary to prevent death. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest v. State, 171 Idaho 374, 445– 446, 522 P. 3d 1132, 1203–1204 (2023). And that is to say nothing of local prosecutors, who may not be aware of (or care about) Idaho’s newfound interpretation of its abortion ban, and who are highly incentivized to enforce the law to the hilt. See Idaho Code Ann. §63–3642 (Supp. 2023) (withholding funding from local governments if their officials decline to enforce Idaho felony laws, which include these felony abortion laws); see also Brief for Idaho Coalition for Safe Healthcare, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 14–24 (discussing myriad ways in which state and local officials in Idaho have targeted physicians). Still, some of my colleagues latch onto the bald representations of Idaho’s counsel, using them as an escape hatch that justifies our dispensing with having to issue a merits ruling in these cases. […]

After today, there will be a few months—maybe a few years—during which doctors may no longer need to airlift pregnant patients out of Idaho. As J USTICE K AGAN emphasizes, portions of Idaho’s law will be preliminarily enjoined (at least for now). Ante, at 2, 4. But having not heard from this Court on the ultimate pre-emption issue, Idaho’s doctors will still have to decide whether to provide emergency medical care in the midst of highly charged legal circumstances with no guarantee that this fragile detente over the State’s categorical prohibitions will be maintained. Cf. ante, at 8 (BARRETT, J., concurring) (“Even with the preliminary injunction in place, Idaho’s ability to enforce its law remains almost entirely intact”).

So, to be clear: Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay. While this Court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires. This Court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation, and we have squandered it. And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas, and elsewhere will be paying the price. Because we owe them—and the Nation—an answer to the straightforward pre-emption question presented in these cases, I respectfully dissent.

* The General Assembly passed a bill in May preparing for a ruling against ER abortions, and shored up protections in Illinois. HB581 has been sent to the governor…

Hospitals shall furnish hospital emergency services, including as described in subsections (b-1) and (b-2), in accordance with the procedures required by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), including, but not limited to, medical screening, the provision of necessary stabilizing treatment, procedures for refusals to consent, restricting transfers until the individual is stabilized, appropriate transfers of patients, nondiscrimination, no delay in examination or treatment, and whistleblower protections. […]

For purposes of this Act, “stabilizing treatment” includes abortion when abortion is necessary to resolve the patient’s injury or acute medical condition that is liable to cause death or severe injury or serious illness. The amendments to this Section are declarative of existing law.

* Governor JB Pritzker…

Following an order by the U.S. Supreme Court that the lower court’s preliminary injunction will take effect in Idaho, temporarily preventing the state from enforcing its ban on abortion in emergency situations, Illinois Governor and Think Big America Founder JB Pritzker released the following statement:

“The brutal treatment of women under the MAGA extremist abortion bans is cruel and unAmerican. Today’s ruling offers a small respite from some of the harshest outcomes, but it is not the broad protection that women and healthcare professionals are owed. In states across the country, because of Trump’s Supreme Court, women will still be denied reproductive care they need and deserve. Remember what this case was about: Republicans were fighting to let hospitals refuse care for dying women. The anti-abortion extremists were never stopping at abortion bans - they want to ban contraception and IVF, and take away hard-won women’s rights. The only way to stop their attack on our freedoms is to defeat them at the ballot box in November.”

* Planned Parenthood Illinois…

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) has protected people’s right to access emergency medical care including abortion for over 40 years. EMTALA has protected people’s right to access emergency abortion care in states where abortion is banned. Attributed to Jennifer Welch, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Illinois:

“Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to continue the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) which has protected people’s right to access emergency abortion for over 40 years. While this decision temporarily allows people to access emergency abortion care, this case will continue in the lower courts and may jeopardize the health and safety of patients across our country.

In Illinois, the General Assembly passed an Illinois Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) which protects people’s right to access emergency reproductive care regardless of what happens at the federal level. Planned Parenthood of Illinois (PPIL) is heartbroken that people living in abortion deserts facing complications in their pregnancy may still be forced to endure unnecessary pain and health complications.

Since Roe was overturned on June 24, 2022, PPIL has seen patients from 41 different states forced to travel to Illinois for abortion care. Our doors are open to provide essential reproductive care including abortion to everyone regardless of their zip code. We continue to fight for everyone to access the health care they need and deserve.”

* Related…

* ABC Chicago | Chicago Abortion Fund helps out-of-state women get abortions in Illinois after Roe v Wade overturned: In the last two years, the Dobbs decision has led to abortion restrictions of some kind in 21 states. Illinois has seen a 41% increase in out-of-state patients seeking an abortion. “I’m a mom who’s had abortions. I know what they meant for my life. I know that without access to that essential care, my life would look really different,” said Mega Jeyifo, executive director of the Chicago Abortion Fund.

[Rich Miller contributed to this post.]